In the event of one or more of a Client’s selections being scratched or being declared a non -runner after a First Ten wager is placed, then in the event that the scratching or declaration is made:before a final field is declared, the wager will be treated as an unsuccessful wager;at or after the time a final field is declared, the wager will be refunded in full to the Client. ANDAn exact stake in the amount of $10 per wager applies (this includes one combination of ten (10) horses). A Client may make up to 10 separate wagers for this bet-type

Those terms and conditions are puzzling.

Why would any reasoned punter, of which there would be none entering , want to bet before final declarations win all bets are 'all in'.

Why have they limited a client to 10 separate bets ? Do they really think have 10 bets is going to make any difference ?

And I agree, I can't understand why anyone would make a bet now. I can only imagine that if you are brainless enough to have a go in the first place you are brainless enough to do it pre-post, especially when you can get four times the odds to pick just the first seven.

They are limiting the number of tickets to try and stop perm guys, who do class well, from taking the prize on a dramatically reduced number of combinations compared to what probability stats might suggest for those who have no idea.

I failed to pick up on the fact that Bubba's post concerned your competitior and not you.

For those that try.... class is your single best factor to reduce your combos BUT as you go from 1st spot to 7th spot the inherent variance for each spot goes up until it flat lines ( almost ) at the mere chance level. There are also distinct tipping points or changes along the line but you are going to have to do the work and find those out for yourselves.

Bookmaker Tom Waterhouse is at the centre of a bitter dispute in the online gambling sector over how much ground the industry should give up to resuscitate its public image.

Fairfax Media can reveal the industry's new peak body, headed by former Labor minister Stephen Conroy, has been poised for weeks to unveil a list of concessions aimed at restoring the "social licence" of internet betting companies, regularly criticised for their blanket advertising and hard-sell approach.

The concessions include:

A ban on offering credit to gamblersScrapping "sign-up" offers used to lure new puntersReducing advertising volume, especially during sport broadcasts.The Conroy-led Responsible Wagering Australia, which replaced the disbanded Australian Wagering Council, represents Sportsbet, Bet365, Betfair, Unibet and James Packer's CrownBet and has an overarching aim to remain a self-regulating industry.

But a stalemate has arisen because William Hill, headed by Mr Waterhouse, and fellow British-owned bookie Ladbrokes, have so far declined to join the RWA.

Fairfax Media understands William Hill, which acquired the Tom Waterhouse.com brand for $34 million in 2013, along with Sportingbet and Centrebet, has no intention of cutting lines of credit to big punters or reining in its growing marketing spend.

William Hill declined to comment on its "internal position" on the proposed reform push but said it was an active participant in the 2015 review of illegal offshore wagering, led by former NSW premier Barry O'Farrell, and supported the "development and implementation of an evidence-based responsible gambling framework".

A Ladbrokes spokesman said it "respectfully declines the opportunity to comment on this matter at this point in time".

But a forthright statement from the RWA questioned the commitment of the dissenting companies to minimising gambling harm in the community.

"Our members are leading the industry and setting an example through their commitments to consumer protection, responsible gambling and harm minimisation measures," an RWA spokeswoman said.

"This is in contrast to other operators that do not demonstrate the same commitment to working with government and other stakeholders to improve regulation and consumer protection."

A source said Ladbrokes and William Hill remained unconvinced of the merits of joining the RWA after the former Wagering Council fell apart after failing to prevent the federal government legislating against online in-play betting, a move that is said to have cost operators $500,000 a week in profits.

It's not the first time Mr Waterhouse has been at loggerheads with rivals.

In 2013, then Sportingbet chief executive Michael O'Sullivan sent shockwaves through the sector when he told Fairfax Media that the scion of the Waterhouse bookmaking dynasty was "acting irresponsibly" by spruiking live betting odds from the sidelines of NRL games in a deal with Channel Nine.

The Gillard government later stepped in to ban live odds updates after months of pressure from a widespread community backlash.

The RWA has proposed abolishing sign-up offers, saying "we believe customers should decide to join a wagering operator without a financial incentive".

But a search for deals on Friday showed Sportsbet offering $75 credit for a $25 opening deposit. William Hill will match any first deposit up to $505 and Ladbrokes gives $80 credit for a $10 deposit.

For every dollar William Hill takes in revenue from punters, it spends 26?? on advertising and marketing.

The company's publicly-listed British parent recently revealed would be raised to 28?? in the dollar as it drives for greater market share.

Despite talk of reforms, the turf war for market share shows no signs of abating. CrownBet recently paid $300 million to become the official "digital partner" of 1200 registered clubs in NSW in a deal that poses a threat to the TAB.